February 2017

With the Trump Administration dangling the prospect of a $1 trillion infrastructure program, now is the time to consider whether a new approach might more effectively address the rural broadband problem.

As a starting point, Congress should consider setting aside some portion of a new infrastructure fund, say $20 billion, for a one-time rural broadband acceleration fund that is expressly designed to make the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service program more efficient. Under this option, a rural area currently without a network capable of meeting the FCC’s 25/3 Mbps benchmark would be eligible for funding. The FCC would set an opening per-location amount for how much it would be willing to pay a carrier in one-time support to deploy a next generation network providing enough bandwidth to meet the upper bounds of future expected demand (for example, a symmetric 100 Mbps) within a set time frame. An express condition of the support would be that the FCC will not provide any ongoing funding in the future. If companies recognized this is their best chance to finance a “future-proof” solution, the aggregate of funds sought by the carriers would likely be substantially in excess of the available targeted fund. If this is the case, then the FCC would run a reverse auction, with firms bidding to receive a lower per-location amount in each round until the amount reached the available targeted fund.

[Commentary] Silicon Valley is rightly focused on President Donald Trump’s immigration order. But it should be gearing up for another fight that’s vital to both tech companies and their customers. Network neutrality is in the crosshairs again. Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has made it clear that he’s no fan. He’s already halted a net neutrality-related investigation launched by hi predecessor and recently reaffirmed his belief that, one way or another, the “days are numbered” for the Open Internet rules. Advocates think internet users — who flooded the FCC with comments in support of net neutrality — played the key part in getting the rules in place and will play a crucial role in defending them. But they are hopeful the tech industry will have their backs. The tech companies “have a responsibility, in my opinion, to not only stand up for their users, in terms of their policy positions, but to fight for them,” said Evan Greer, a campaign director at Fight for the Future.

When the maker of Snapchat filed recently to go public, it also stepped directly into the contentious political debate surrounding net neutrality, warning that if the government removes the Federal Communications Commission’s “open Internet” rules it could seriously harm its business. Smaller wireless streaming video providers like Snap are among those with the most to lose if the Open Internet rules are rolled back. In its filing for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Snap warned that if they are modified or removed, “mobile providers may be able to limit our users’ ability to access Snapchat or make Snapchat a less attractive alternative to our competitors’ applications.”